Sunday, January 07, 2007

Boring Brown Fails to Say Anything Interesting

I didn't have a very good nioght's sleep last night, but I needn't have worried. All I had to do is tune in to Andrew Marr's programme and listen to the interview with Gordon Brown to be induced into a prolonged zzzzz.

I cannot think of an occasion when I have actually heard Gordon Brown say anything interesting in an interview. He uses a kind of language which normal people just do not indulge in. He manages to go for 15 minutes without saying anything at all. Quite a feat, I suppose.

I now understand why the BBC made so much on its news bulletins about Brown's remarks on Saddam's execution. Brown echoed Prescott's remarks, criticising the grisly spectacle. In itself this is not exactly newsworthy, but because Blair hasn't said anything about the hanging the BBC led its news bulletins with Brown's remarks proof of a further split with Blair. Laura Kuensberg was positively breathless in her comments live in the studio.

The simple fact of the matter is that with any political interview nowadays there has to be a"top line" to emerge from it otherwise the interviewer will be seen to have failed. For Brown's remarks on Saddam to be a 'top line' demonstrates what a mind-numbingly boring interview it was.

60 comments:

Anonymous said...

What made me laugh is Brown's assertion that 'naethin' is wrong about the current 'devolutional' settlement regarding England in the horlicks that Labour created. Personally, i'd rather England goes independent, and enacts PR for local government only in metropolitan areas (Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham- etc)that will make Labour scream!

Anonymous said...

Totally agree. I switched off after he failed to answer - yet again - the question of Scottish MPs voting on English matters. And Marr simply rolled over and let him get away with it.

Regarding his comments on the Saddam execution, I note he only comes out with his so-called opinion a week after the event, which has given him time to see which way the wind is blowing. Typical Brown - no guts, no saying anything unless he thinks there is something in it for him. God help us if and when this boring wind-bag is Prime Minister.

Anonymous said...

The problem is more basic. Marr is useless in this Sunday slot. The programme is so bland it is not worth watching. All that arts stuff first thing on A Sunday gets on your nerves. Why worry about Brown? He is going to win, become the worse PM since Eden and lose the election. Let him have a free ride. Who wants Reid?

Anonymous said...

Marr is truly pathetic. Still, that's what you end up with when the main broadcaster is dependent on a tax to survive.

As for GB and executions, just wait till the Treasury dip into the history books and discover that at one time the estates of condemned prisoners reverted to the Exchequer... there'll be gibbets in every Sainsbury car-park.

Anonymous said...

Poor Any More interviewing Gordo.........if he isn't a sycophant his harridan spouse Jackie Ashley will flay the meek-mannered actuary she married for better or worse


By letting the Director General of the Walter Ulbricht Brickworks Kombinat spout on about Real Existing Socialism and how the heroic efforts of the Workers to surpass the Capitalist West will be achieved by mailing GCSE and NVQ Certificates to every African child; Any More and the BBC showed why the lcence fee cut was generous from this regime

Anonymous said...

"He manages to go for 15 minutes without saying anything at all."

As opposed to David Cameron who has now gone 15 months...

Anonymous said...

At least Gordon's hair appeared clean - I expect Marr washed it for him.

Anonymous said...

Andrew Marr is NuLab to the core and let and will continue to let all Labour politicians off the hook.

To add insult to injury I am forced to pay his wages.The Brown Broadcasting Corporation simple has to go.!

Here are two simple questions to Brown.For every 5 pence you spend on Defence you you spend 29 Pence on Benefits.Is that a good balance of expenditure.?

With the help of the Barnett formula and your good self Scotland has 144000 net taxpayers, out of a nation of 5 million.Can you understand why a majority of the English want an independent Scotland.It will save us 20 billions pounds a year!!

Anonymous said...

You are treading on dangerous territory here, Iain. I seem to recall a legal action when it was suggested that Ken Barlow was boring.

However, Gordon Brown does not excite me. Can he pull it off, and if so, how long will he last?

uk-events said...

I'm quite annoyed with Marr's pathetic interview. Its the second time in as many months where he's asked nothing and got nothing.

Perhaps its about time people started complaining to the BBC about this type of "journalism"?

Anonymous said...

Iain, I know what you mean but the boringness of this interview has now been eclipsed by this blog - which seems to be saying very little lately and now has done the ultimate and reported a boring interview in a boring way.

Iain Dale said...

Jimbo, ok then, what would you like me to do more/less of? The feedback generally is that the blog has picked up again after an admittedly dodgy October and November.

Anonymous said...

Interesting Picture - was Gordy thinking about his 5 economic tests again ?

Anonymous said...

Iain - Good of you to respond. I think you should do more of what you do best and really get to the guts of the arguments. I think there has been a tendancy of late for you just to be scathing rather than explain your reaction to an event in more depth.

I would be very interested to know exactly what you think about the prospect of Gordon Brown being PM for example - what do you think the outcomes would be, what changes would he make etc.

Anonymous said...

Come on use F7 or get a copy of Firefox.

Anonymous said...

He said nothing interesting but then I am not his intended audience so I have to recognise that I am not the best judge.

I echo the points about Marr, why bother interviewing him? Guido has said that it came across as a political broadcast for Brown because it was so timid.

Anonymous said...

I think Brown DID answer Marr's question on West Lothian. He said, in effect, that this was the price England had to pay for being 85% of the Union. English votes for English legislation was NOT a step he would be taking.

When asked if Brown had ANYTHING to offer the English on this question, he reverted to his usual politobabble and jowl wobbling.

Anonymous said...

Learnt nothing from the interview except for his comments on the hanging of Saddam Hussein.

When there are so many issues that need to be sorted out - closure of hospitals despite record funding, housing/equipment supplied to armed forces etc, agree Marr was rubbish.

Anonymous said...

Re Boring Blog

Iain you focus on Politics rather than Policies. Start focusing on the absurdities of this Government.

People know the country is badly run but they can't go to one place and read all about it.

Maybe their needs to be an alliance of Bloggers, just like a newspaper has a sports section, a business section etc etc.

The tax we pay and where it goes (North of Oxford)

How after 11 years of full-time education so many kids can't read, write or do simple sums well.

The NHS, All the money being spent but patients still having their treatment delayed by managers.

Crime, street crime has gone through the roof, where are the police?

Prisons, Is attendance optional.

Anonymous said...

Brown has been a pretty good chancellor in the whole scheme of things I would have to admit. However he has a distinct lack of charisma which I believe it a necessary thing for leaders to have. He is going to be the grey Major to Blair's Thatcher.

He didn't have the guts to challenge Blair back in 1994 when they made their apparent grubby deal and have been sulking ever since. And now the country will be stuck with him as leader without any of us being asked. Shame for democracy.

Anonymous said...

He has nothing new to offer. A fact that even underarm bowling from Marr could not conceal. And that is the story. After ten years nu Labour is ideologically spent. They are even unable to deal with the inherent contradictions of their own policies leave alone the cock-ups or the on-going defence crisis that most - this blog included - don't think important.

In true nu Labour style this embarrassment is hidden by the distracter "Saddam was treated badly etc." which we all focused on like the saps we are. Brown was merely papering over the cracks.

neil craig said...

The headline remark for me was that education is so important that, even though he basicly acknowledged that state spending cannot continue its present rate of rise, it should continue for education spending until state spending matches public schools.

I think he is right about the importance of education but wrong in thinking money the most important variable, classroom discipline is, & there are many private schools with per pupil budgets similar to state schools.

Of course my headline doesn't fit the adage "if it bleeds it leads" which probably makes me as boring as him.

Anonymous said...

bt, Anonymous 11:54 and Charlotte Corday - Funny!

Do you people commenting on this blog really believe that Blair's going?

Anonymous said...

Where does Brown get this idea that the English have to "pay" for the union? Why has this suddenly come about 300 years after the Act of Union? Why do the Scots not have to "pay" for the union?

Shame on Mr Marr for not piking him up on the point. Oh well he is a Scot.

Anonymous said...

Verity - You know I suspect something will come up that demands the Beloved Leader stay on. He likes being PM oh so very much does our Tone. I nearly choked on my porridge when I read this in The Times last week:

An unholy alliance threatening catastrophe by Anatole Kaletsky


Kalestsky is usually worth reading. (Unlike that world class drip Parris.)

Anonymous said...

verity - interesting that you should ask that. There's this conspiracy theory I read this morning following on from the Sunday Times piece about how Israel plans to bomb Iran's nuclear prrocessing plants with mini-nukes sometime within the next 6 months.

Well, latest hints are that Princess Toni has pencilled in June for his final curtain - six months away. But how could he even consider stepping down if this happens in the ME? His country, Europe - nay, the entire world needs him. So he'd have to sacrifice his well-earned repose and soldier on, secure in the knowledge that the hand of destiny is on his shoulder.

kinglear said...

The whole thing was sleep-inducing. Marr should be banned from interviewing political people - his comments may be worthwhile, but as far as an interview, this was a Party Political Broadcast.
I suggested the rule should be - Marr interviews Conservatives ( at least he is anti THEM) and John Humphries shoudl interview the Labourites. Might make for rather more interesting viewing. Marr is clearly disillusioned the Bliar, but believes ( breathlessly) that Brown is the answer. Oh, dear.

Anonymous said...

I love the way we're presented with a Gordon Brown as if it's a rare privilege for us, the little people he inexplicably believes it's his birthright to rule! This Chancellor has a contempt for democracy and a monstrous ego, truly alarming and dangerous characteristics. Andrew Marr had a chance to represent us and he failed dismally
PS Gordon has a really unattractive combination of self-belief and cowardice, something's not right. Even this morning's party political broadcast can't disguise his basic flakiness.

Anonymous said...

The Druid and BT - Yes. I have a sickening feeling that Blair will find that his conscience, soi-disant, will not let him leave the world stage and the world's TV cameras because it is his duty to deal - with his usual effectiveness - with some looming crisis.

I am not counting on his going. The only comfort in this grisly scenario is, it will be a devastating slap in the ego of the repulsive Brown.

Anonymous said...

What was it which Brown said 'If you had only English votes on English matters then that would lead to the breakup of the union.'

Hold on a second...We have only Scottish votes on Scottish matters. Thats something which he (NuLab) brought in with devolution. Something is deeply wrong here. It's becuase of devolution that we have the bloody problem in the first place.

And what did Marr do to challenge him.....absolutly nothing.

Anonymous said...

Why is it that the BBC let labour off time and again with not answering questions. Do you remember how they used to be with the Tories.
I think they know that Labour is more vindictive and that they would punish the BBC in some way.
I think Brown is far overated.

Anonymous said...

Much of our media now seem to be happily colluding with Brownites , sorry, Nutters, in the creation of a cult of personality for a man without the basic quota. To be crude they are gilding the turd. With every public appearance, no matter how stage managed, his essential inadequacy is clearly apparent. But for Brownite nutters inadequacy means strength, substance even . As Steve Bell has written Gordon does substance the way Tony does sincerity.
Gordon also seems to be something of a egotistical megalomaniac with a Stalinist fear at his core , cheers Andrew Marr for holding him to account. He's such a humble, unambitious fella with no power who could blame you for such soft questioning? What disgrace!

Anonymous said...

Johnny Norfolk - I suspect that the reason the Beeb is so tame with Labour is not only their admitted left-wing bias. Many of those who work at the Beeb see themselves in the vanguard of progressive Britain's battle against the Beloved Leader's anti-Christ, "the forces of Conservatism." Hence the moralising smug superior "you lot are uncivilised scum" attitude and approached that they take to elected politicians on the right. They ooze disdain for the "Tories" as they insist on calling the Conservative Party. After all Conservatism is responsibile for the murder of Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela's years in Prison and so on.

But added to that must be the fact that the Charter is up for renewal. In any other country state broadcasting is regulated by the legislature. But not here where the royal prerogative allows politicians to lean on the supposedly impartial national broadcaster. Really healthy for democracy.

Anonymous said...

Here we go again - the usual debate on whether the BBC is Left wing or Right Wing. Surprisingly the Right says it's too Left Wing and the Left say it's too Right Wing. I far as I can see the BBC gets the balance about right. I would imagine it does the job better than a lot of TV companies around the world in terms of bias.

Anonymous said...

Its not a question of perceived bias. They admit it!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770

Anonymous said...

At least Marr isn't a Paxman - i.e. getting worked up on one side of the argument and then inexplicably equally worked up on the other side. The layed-back style often lets the interviewee hang himself (Smarmy Frost was effective in that quite often.)

Anonymous said...

The BBC does its recruitment in the pages of the Guardian.

Applications from Labour, woolly, gay, minority ethnic europhiles welcome.

Anonymous said...

lol - the Druid. Your link to BBC admitted bias - is from the DAILY MAIL - a totally blatant, right wing and unrepentant media source if there ever was one! Of course they wouldn't exaggerate the article, distort it or edit it such as to reflect their well-known anti-BBC view would they? Hardly objective source there is it?!

In the early 80s there was some books (More Bad News) written by academics on the left who claimed the BBC was too right wing. If the BBC was so left wing it would hardly have such a spate with the present government over the David Kelly.

Personally I don’t think there should be a licence fee. Let the BBC have adverts. And if you want right wing bias then watch Fox News on cable.

Anonymous said...

Gaffauk

Where have you been, If you think the BBC get it about right then you are some kind of leftie.
The BBC has admmited it, it is not just The Daily Mail.

You need to improve your research.

Anonymous said...

gaffauk - the story on BBC bias was syndicated. The Mail is not my cuppa. But there is a world of difference between it and the BBC. The latter a STATE broadcaster is funded by our taxes and thus is under a special duty to be fair and impartial, which in a democracy is very important. The Mail is a private paper - it can within the law print what it likes. Obviously a lot of people like it otherwise it would have gone bust. The BBC will never go bust. In fact it stifles competition particularly in the internet broadcasting sector as The Economist points out this week. And that in anyone's book must be wrong.

Anonymous said...

I had that Andrew Marr in the back of my cab about two years ago. I did not realise then how much he was one of them. I very nearly said to him, as he paid me off "Next time you see that Tony Blair, tell him he's a F*****g ***t". I bottled the opportunity, which is probably just as well as a complaint from an establishment figure like Marr could have cost me my license. I have learnt my lesson. If he hails my cab tommorow I will drive on by.

Anonymous said...

Like the Sith institute much of the media is factionally Brownite. It isn't question of left or right GUFFAUK it's about power.

neil craig said...

Gaffauk it is quite wrong to single out the Daily Mail. The Guardian is on record as saying that the label "anti-semite" should be used to attack anybody who was not willing to support the openly genocidal policies of our (ex-)Nazi friend running the fundamentalist Moslem regime in Bosnia. The BBC is on record as saying that his policy, of openly calling for the genocide of the Orthodox, Catholic & Jewish communities (60% of the population) was "moderate & multi-cultural".

Can you produce any case of the Mail producing a story 1,000th as racist, dishonest & pro-Nazi as the Guardian & BBC? If not you owe it an apology.

Anonymous said...

As I say - I don't think we should have a State TV. And the BBC has continually criticised the current Labour government in terms of Iraq and numerous other issues. But of course it will never be enough for those on the Right will it.

Please give me an example of a media news outlet (state subsidized or privately owned)any where in the world which hasn't been accused of being bias. It's impossible - don't you see?

I have no doubt that those who are currently at the BBC or those that have been in at the BBC in recent years like Greg Dyke are Labour supporters. I would imagine that a lot of our military Generals and top businessmen might be more inclined to be Tory supporters.

As for Neil Craig's claims. Back it up. Where do you get your evidence from?

Anonymous said...

Iain - Bravo! well-written and bang on.

Marr is just another Scottish emigre scribe who's discovered North London house price inflation and thinks Brown has something to do with the new-found wealth he thinks will found his future.

Andrew, he doesn't. And it won't.

Anonymous said...

Guffauk -
"I have no doubt that those who are currently at the BBC or those that have been in at the BBC in recent years like Greg Dyke are Labour supporters."

How can I break this gently...Greg was not only a Labour Party member, but also a donor to the Party. Before he was DG.

Anonymous said...

"How can I break this gently...Greg was not only a Labour Party member, but also a donor to the Party. Before he was DG"

Exactly - a well known fact. So does that means no one who works for the government, teachers, nurses, soldiers, or those at the BBC can ever give money to a political party?

neil craig said...

Gafauk it is perhaps disengenous for you to ask me to give a general justification of what I said about the Guardian/BBC & their support of genocide when you make no effort to give chapter & verse about your claims for the Mail.

Nonetheless I am willing to take you up. However, if you wish to keep this shorter than an encyclopedia you must specify which part of what I said you dispute.

Is it that the the Guardian claimed that anybody who did not support our Nazi ally in Bosnia should be described as anti-semitic? Is it that the BBC did describe Izetbegovic as a "moderate Moslem committed to a multi-cultural Bosnia"? Is it that he was, in fact, an (ex-)Nazi, former SS auxiliary (& not of one of the nicer SS units)? Is it that he was publicly committed to the genocide of all non-Moslem groups in Bosnia?

I do not think either of us would doubt that the decision of the BBC & Guardian not to report such things about our Nazi friends over a period of 17 years must, because of the timesacle, represent the very highest standard of honesty & indeed human decency of which they are capable.

If what I say happened happened then I trust you would agree that the very highest standard of honesty & decency of which they are capable makes them more "blatantly right wing" not to say racist than anybody you oppose.

It is a straw man to say that every media source has been accused of bias - the correct judgement would be whether thay have been proved to have lied or censored, particularly in a case involving something as important as the genocide of hundreds of thousands of humans.

Anonymous said...

No Neil Craig when I say back it up I mean as so forth:

"Is it that the the Guardian claimed that anybody who did not support our Nazi ally in Bosnia should be described as anti-semitic?"

I have no idea what you are talking about. Cite your reference. What date did the Guardian claim this. Attach a link.


"Is it that the BBC did describe Izetbegovic as a "moderate Moslem committed to a multi-cultural Bosnia"?

When did the BBC claim this. Cite a reference and a link.

"Is it that he was, in fact, an (ex-)Nazi, former SS auxiliary (& not of one of the nicer SS units)? Is it that he was publicly committed to the genocide of all non-Moslem groups in Bosnia?"

Who is he? And where did he publically make this claim. Cite a reference and a link.

I don't doubt what you are saying maybe true - but I have no idea unless you provide something for me to look and see whether this is true or not.

neil craig said...

1) "There was also a mutated strand of anti-Semitism in a lot of this, the Muslims being, in their way, the Jews of Bosnia"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/itn/article/0,2763,184815,00.html
The Guardian & indeed everybody who had seriously researched it, knew that the Bosnian Moslem leader whose enemies they were accusing of anti-semitism was in fact an anti-semitic (ex-)Nazi. It would probably be unwise of to express my opinion of the Guardian's action but it certainly seems cynical.

2) The quote is taken from a Newsnight edition but anybody who watched BBC reporting of the Bosnian war (I have to accapt you never did) will have seen that the Bosnian Nazis were continually reported as the victims, moderates & multi-culturalists & that reporting was virtually always from their side (both figuratively & geographicaly). Their Nazi history was, of course, suppressed by the BBC.

3) "He", as I made clear, was Alia Izetbegovic, the Bosnian Moslem leader:

"Alija Izetbegovic was a war criminal.

15 A. Nazi war criminal.

16 Q. Nazi war criminal, yes. Well, now, it's true that at the age 18

17 he joined a group that sided with the Germans, but can you just tell us..."
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/050314IT.htm
The Q being the prosecuter in the NATO funded Yugoslav War Crimes "trial" & therefore hardly impartial, yet even he acknowlegdeges Izetbegovic's Nazi past. The organisation of which Izetbegovic was a leader was the "Young Moslems" who acted as auxiliaries to the Handzar Division of the SS. It may be of interest that our moderate multicultural genocidal Nazi friend, on whose behalf we bombed schools, set up his very own "bodyguard" when he came to power which he also named the Handzar Division in honoue of his genocidal alma mater.
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/handzar/handzar.htm

Since, once again, Gaffauk has declined to justify his claims about the Mail I must ask him to acknowledge that he has no evidence that would make them 1000th as culplable as the Guardian & BBC. Their journalistic standards have allowed then to deliberately lie & censor for 17 years to assist people they must know to have been Nazis openly engaged in genocide.

Anonymous said...

Neil - going through one comment at a time.

Firstly using your own reference the Guardian does not claim, I far as I can see, that anybody who did not support our Nazi ally in Bosnia should be described as anti-semitic.

What this particular writer (as opposed to The Guardian's editorial own comment) says is that he feels that the particular members of London's intelligentsia who came to offer support to Living Marxism when they claimed that concentration camps run by the Serbs were fake - are anti-semitic.

*So it wasn't the Guardian itself who made this claim.
*The writer doesn't claim "anybody" but refers to a particular set of people.
*He doesn't even say that these people (Weldon etc) are anti-semitic because they don't support Izetbegovic. His name isn't even mentioned in the article!
*He says the are anti-semitic because he claims they supported Living Marxism belief that ITN story on Serb concentration camps were faked.

Example - if I said that people who believe Diana was killed by the Royal Family are conspiracy theorists that is not the same as me claiming that everyone who does not support the Royal Family are conspiracy theorists.

-or-

If I said that I believe that Neo-Nazi supporters who deny that the holocaust happened are racist - that is not the same as me claiming that anybody who does not support the policies of the current Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert are racist.

Big difference, Neil!

As for the Mail - I'll come to that.

neil craig said...

The Guardian said that these people were anti-semitic purely because they did not support our Bosnian Nazi friends, which clearly requires that anybody else who does the same is equally anti-semitic.

The comparison would be saying that David Irving must be neo-Nazi if he doesn't accept the Holocaust implying that anybody else who doesn't accept the Holocaust (such as our friend Franjo Tudjman the Croatian leader whose genocide we assisted) must also be considered neo-Nazi.

Obviously the BBC & Guardian censored any mention of his opinions on the Holocaust & on at least one occasion the Guardian deliberately lied about his ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Croatia saying it was 150,000 when it was actually at least 500,000.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Gaffauk,

The late Alija Izetbegovic, former illegtimate "president" of Bosnia Herzegovina,illegal ursuper of power in 1990 from the duly elected Bosnian muslim leader, Mr.Fikret Abdic ,is the one behind the death camp fraud (he admitted it on his death bed) along with a multi-million dollar funded American "public relations" & lobbying firm (i.e. Ruder Finn - who also worked as a lobbying group in Washington on behalf of the Islamist Nazi terrorist KLA and Tudjman's HDZ Fascist neo-Ustasha racist government).

Izetbegovic, the man described by ITN,BBC,CNN,the Guardian et al, as a:

"secular muslim and moderate democrat committed to a multi-ethnic Western style liberal democracy" was in fact committed to genocide of all non-muslims.

Well before the outbreak of war in 1992, Izetbegovic PUBLICLY announced his commitment to genocide by having his version of Hitler's Mein Kampf (his 1970 manifesto, "The Islamic Declaration": a call for Jihad and the extermination of non-Muslims, re-published in 1990 as part of his election campaign).

"Izetbegovic appointed the Muslim National Council (MNC) of Bosnia to achieve long-term aspirations, to create a Muslim state in the Balkans. This state would defend the Muslim interests throughout Yugoslavia, i.e. Sandzak, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Croatia, Serbia). “Rise brother Muslims, there are enough of us to accomplish our goals, whom the Muslim and those of Muslim blood will not betray. This time will never come again. Now is the opportunity to realize the dream of every Muslim” [qouted in Doc Center, 2002 from the Bosnian Muslim magazine VOX]. Among other objectives the MNC was working for were the creation of a Muslim state within the borders of present day B&H and formation of the Muslim Armed Forces.

"In October 1991, the MNC defined its political platform:

“The day is nearing when the announced Islamic Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina will be proclaimed. The date, which every Muslim in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Sandzak [Ra┼íka] is ardently waiting for has been known for a long time to be the 31st December. There are some indications that the Serbs might oppose this historic event...Every individual Serb must be aware of the responsibility of the entire nation, the penalty for crimes will be collective-for one dead Muslim one hundred Sebs will be liquidated-for one wounded Muslim (depending on the wound severity) 10-50 Serbs will be executed[ibid].

The document further elaborates how the Serbs would be treated in the Islamic Republic.

“All Serbs will have a 12-hour working day. The wages will be proportionate to the loyalty of all employees and as a rule they will be paid 30 percent less than the wages of Muslims whom occupy the same post ... Serbs will receive rations for food, which they will obtain in special shops. Serbs do not have national parties and if the do not abide by the rules of political life, they will not be entitled to political organization or to vote..Serbs are equal to Muslims if, of their own will, they are received into the Islamic faith of their forefathers...A good Serb is a living and obedient Serb or a dead, disobedient Serb [ibid].

The presidency of the Association of the Islamic Clergy (Ilmia) for B&H offered in 1992 in huge print, run in annual Takvim, the following instruction for jihad:

“Jihad in Islam is not only a war in the name of Allah. In reality, Islam is a revolutionary ideology and program that aims at changing the social system of the whole world and order it in harmony with its regulations and ideals. Islam wants to destroy all the states and governments anywhere on earth which stand opposed to the ideology and program of Islam, regardless of the state or the nation that is in power. The purpose of Islam is to establish the state based on its ideology and program, no matter which nation becomes the bearer of Islam or which nation is undermined in the process of establishing the ideological Islamic state” [ibid].


See: Who was Alija Izetbegovic: Moderate democrat or radical Islamist?

and
Alija Izetbegovic: A Retrospective Look at His Impact on Balkan Stability


For photographs of Izetbegovic's massacres (perpetrated by his Islamist Nazi "tough guy", Naser Oric: given a "harsh" 2 year sentence by NATO's Hague ICTY and RELEASED!) in the towns and villages of Srebrenica, Bratunac,Skelani,Milici, Kravica, Gorazde et al, see: The Real Srebrenica Genocide


Of course, the Gaurdian and BBC knew that Izetbegovic was a Nazi as early as 1983 when he was jailed for his Islamist attempted terrorist activities, but deliberately censored the truth about his WW2 Nazi background and genocidal Nazi beliefs which he reiterated publicly in a shuttle tour of fundamentalist Islamist terrorist states in the Middle East during 1991 (especially his visit to Tehran where he agreed with the Ayatollah Khomeini that Salman Rushdie deserved the death sentence for writing "the Satanic Verses").
ITN reporters went to Bosnia in 1992 in search of "concentration camps held by the Serbs" after American reporter, Roy Gutman, of New York's "Newsday" paper made a sensational claim - with no independent proof whatsoever - (other than Izetbegvic SDA government press releases)that the Bosnian Serbs were running "death camps".

Pity ITN didn't do so in 1991 when there were already real death camps set up at the Borovo footware factory and the "Rowing Club" in Vukovar, Croatia: at least 1,000 Serbian civilians -including women,children & the elderly - were beheaded and dismembered in a two month period in late 1991 by Tudjman's neo-Ustasha Nazi "Black Legion" troops (Croat version of the SS) with many more thousands of Serbs being murdered and half a million expelled from late 1991 to late 1995. See Hiding Genocide:Croatia has resumed its "liquidation" of Serbs, while arguing that "ethnic cleansing" is a Serbian creation...


As far as the Guardian is concerned they were an integral part of the ITN "accidental" deception and fakery regarding the refugee collection centre known as Trnopolje.

That is to say, their practice of "accidentally" placing their reporters INSIDE an enclosed agricultural compound surrounded by a 5 foot tall broken down chicken wirefence - with two rusted out old strands of barbed wire on top - and then proceeding to "accidentally" film from within this enclosed area - surrounded by this chicken wire fence - a single very thin looking Bosnian muslim, known as Fikret Alic whom instead of being sullen as one would normally expect from someone who was starving, was smiling and laughing. Mr. Alic was surrounded by men also doing the same - smiling and joking - the only difference being that these men were all normal looking and some even had pot bellies.

Even the judge in the LM vs ITN case had to admit that the ITN/Guardian people were "mistaken" in their belief (a nice way of saying that they were lying) that they were not filming from within an enclosed area (pretty hard to "believe" any such thing, since Penny Marshall & her team of ITN cameramen & the Guardian's Ed Vulliamy had to crawl through a broken down part of the chicken wire fence in order to gain entry!)

Thus, ITN lied as did the Guardian not for what they explicitly said and wrote, but what they implied when they failed to tell the world that Trnopolje was NOT a WW2 style Nazi "concentration camp" with all that such a camp implies: 30 foot high guard towers in each corner containing machine gun nests and surrounded by 10 foot high electrified fences and/or razor sharp barbed wire. They also failed to broadcast the uncensored video footage showing the Bosnian muslim refugees ridiculing the notion put forth by Penny Marshall, that they were in a prison or that they were not being fed.


See the photo fakery the Guardian perpetrated again 12 years later in September 2004, where they tried to pass off a photograph of Fikret Alic at Trnopolje refugee camp as "inmates of the Serbian concentration camp of Omarska".

The description of the photo stayed up as "concentration camp of Omarska" on their website for nearly 2 years until it was exposed as a fraud.

See Lies the London Guardian told me... or, The Return of Villainy

The Guardian is clearly guilty of crimes against peace by suppressing the truth of the genocide of thousands of civilians and the ethnic cleansing of over a million and a half more, perpetrated against the Serbs by the racist Tudjman HDZ neo-Fascist Ustasha Croats, KLA Ceku/HAradinaj/Thaci Islamist Nazi terrorists and Izetbegovic SDA Islamist Nazis from 1990 to 1999 - inciting a racist war against the Serbs for an entire decade - by incessantly screaming out for the Serbs to be bombed out of their ancestral homes by NATO on behalf of NATO's proxies: the real genocidal Nazis of Tudjman, Izetbegovic & Ceku/Thaci/Haradinaj of the KLA - on the basis of photographic fakery and egregious outright lies.

They - along with the BBC & ITN - should have been tried and punsihed for these journalistic crimes of racist incitement to war - crimes against peace in support of self-confessed genocidal Nazis and Islamist Fascist terrorists - in their publicly announced commitment to ethnic cleansing campaigns of mass murder PRIOR to the outbreak of war - massive crimes of genocide which they knowingly covered up and suppressed, whitewashed, distorted and skewed the truth of, for the last 17 years.

Anonymous said...

Neil - you still seem very confused.

Putting aside whether Izetbegovic is a bad man or not. This is irrelevant as the Guardian source you link to does not even mention him. To prove whether this guy is bad or not doesn't mean that the Guardian believes that anyone who doesn't support Izetbegovic is anti-Semitic.

1. First point you miss.
This is a REPORTER's comments. And not the Guardian's. A newspaper often has contradictory views because they often like to express different views. If it was in the commentary from the Guardian or if the reporter was not named then you could argue that this was the Guardian's view. In this case it is clearly the reporter's view and the reader cannot assume it is the same as the Guardian.

2. You use the very vague term 'SUPPORT'. Yes if there are other people who also believe that the concentration camps set up by the Serbs are fake - then it is a reasonable ASSUMPTION that this particular reporter might also believe those people has a 'mutated strand of anti-Semitism'. However again it is not absolute. Those who believe the camp was fake might have evidence which may convince the reporter whereas currently the reporter is not convinced by those who supported Living Marxism's claim.

3) It is a amazing DISTORTION created by yourself to say that because some people believe these camps were fake then the Guardian believes that all those who don't support Izetbegovic are anti-semitic.

For example:
'Imagine' if I believe those camps are real BUT I believe that Izetbegovic is a war-criminal. And that I believe both sides in the war committed war crimes.

Because I believe those camps are real that doesn't mean I suddenly support Izetbegovic. That is clearly illogical. Again - an example - if I thought dropping a bomb on Japan was wrong - that doesn't mean I support Japan's warmongering and it doesn't mean I support Hitler's aims.

At the end of the day, your link, only shows that a particular reporter believes that those who supported Living Marxism claim that the concentration camps allegedly set up by the Serbs are anti-semitic. Nowhere in that article do I see conclusive evidence that the Guardian believes that ANYONE who doesn't support Izetbegovic is anti-semitic.

As for the BBC - you didn't post any links and if your distortion with the BBC is as bad as the one you have done with the Guardian above - then it's probably not worth looking at.

Anonymous said...

GaffaUK,

Sir, I would like you to re-read the below paragraphs from my previous comment and tell me whether or not you still believe the ITN/Guardian lie -whether implicit or explicit- that Trnopolje was a "concentration camp" (since those are the words they use). Especially after reading the article Lies the London Guardian told me... or, The Return of Villainy

A simple YES or NO answer will suffice, GaffaUK.There is no need to justify/defend your answer:
*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

As far as the Guardian is concerned they were an integral part of the ITN "accidental" deception and fakery regarding the refugee collection centre known as Trnopolje.

That is to say, their practice of "accidentally" placing their reporters INSIDE an enclosed agricultural compound surrounded by a 5 foot tall broken down chicken wire fence - with two rusted out old strands of barbed wire on top - and then proceeding to "accidentally" film from within this enclosed area - surrounded by this chicken wire fence - a single very thin looking Bosnian muslim, known as Fikret Alic whom instead of being sullen as one would normally expect from someone who was starving, was smiling and laughing. Mr. Alic was surrounded by men also doing the same - smiling and joking - the only difference being that these men were all normal looking and some even had pot bellies.

Even the judge in the LM vs ITN case had to admit that the ITN/Guardian people were "mistaken" in their belief (a nice way of saying that they were lying) that they were not filming from within an enclosed area (pretty hard to "believe" any such thing, since Penny Marshall & her team of ITN cameramen & the Guardian's Ed Vulliamy had to crawl through a broken down part of the chicken wire fence in order to gain entry!)

Thus, ITN lied as did the Guardian not for what they explicitly said and wrote, but what they implied when they failed to tell the world that Trnopolje was NOT a WW2 style Nazi "concentration camp" with all that such a camp implies: 30 foot high guard towers in each corner containing machine gun nests and surrounded by 10 foot high electrified fences and/or razor sharp barbed wire. They also failed to broadcast the uncensored video footage showing the Bosnian muslim refugees ridiculing the notion put forth by Penny Marshall, that they were in a prison or that they were not being fed.


See the photo fakery the Guardian perpetrated again 12 years later in September 2004, where they tried to pass off a photograph of Fikret Alic at Trnopolje refugee camp as "inmates of the Serbian concentration camp of Omarska".

The description of the photo stayed up as "concentration camp of Omarska" on their website for nearly 2 years until it was exposed as a fraud.

See Lies the London Guardian told me... or, The Return of Villainy

The Guardian is clearly guilty of crimes against peace by suppressing the truth of the genocide of thousands of civilians and the ethnic cleansing of over a million and a half more, perpetrated against the Serbs by the racist Tudjman HDZ neo-Fascist Ustasha Croats, KLA Ceku/HAradinaj/Thaci Islamist Nazi terrorists and Izetbegovic SDA Islamist Nazis from 1990 to 1999 - inciting a racist war against the Serbs for an entire decade - by incessantly screaming out for the Serbs to be bombed out of their ancestral homes by NATO on behalf of NATO's proxies: the real genocidal Nazis of Tudjman, Izetbegovic & Ceku/Thaci/Haradinaj of the KLA - on the basis of photographic fakery and egregious outright lies.

They - along with the BBC & ITN - should have been tried and punished for these journalistic crimes of racist incitement to war - crimes against peace in support of self-confessed genocidal Nazis and Islamist Fascist terrorists - in their publicly announced commitment to ethnic cleansing campaigns of mass murder PRIOR to the outbreak of war - massive crimes of genocide which they knowingly covered up and suppressed, whitewashed, distorted and skewed the truth of, for the last 17 years.

Anonymous said...

One more piece of exculpatory evidence is this article JUDGMENT DAY FOR THE WESTERN MEDIA: KOSOVO AND THE BIG LIE

Anonymous said...

Peter - it would not surprise me if a media outlet like the Guardian, ITN or any other paper/broadcaster 'exaggerated' it. I do not know the full story of the camp, nor do I claim to - so I am not in a position clearly to say yes or no based on your subjective view. Guess what - newspapers exaggerate their stories all the time.

However looking at the Living Marxism case - it seems that the camp was not fake - insomuch that the camp did exist. The debate seems to hinge on whether it was a concentration or detention camp.

Have a look at the wikipedia entry...

"According to subsequent testimony from witnesses, compared to other detention camps in the region, Trnopolje was a relatively minimal-security staging area for the forcible deportation of non-Serbs from the Prijedor area, and detainees were fed only sporadically, but were allowed to forage for food outside the detention area's perimeter [1], which explains the widely varying nourishment condition of the inmates. There were about 300 reported killings in the camp, and far more reported incidents of systematic rape of female detainees."

So it is hotly disputed. IF the above is true - it certainly doesn't sound like a holiday camp. Besides I'm not taking issue whether the camp existed on not.

Whether the camps was faked, exaggerated or existed as ITN portrayed - does does this show the Guardian has accused those who do not support Izetbegovic of being anti-semitic?

Or as you would put it:

A simple YES or NO answer will suffice.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

GaffaUK,

You write:

Whether the camps was faked, exaggerated or existed as ITN portrayed - does does this show the Guardian has accused those who do not support Izetbegovic of being anti-semitic?

Or as you would put it:

A simple YES or NO answer will suffice.


Sir, I was not the individual whom wrote to you above regarding the Guardian's Ed Vulliamy implying that anyone whom disagreed with the Guardian's allegations concerning the refugee collection center Trnopolje being a "concentration camp", was somehow guilty of being "anti-Semitic".


Sir, that individual whom wrote those comments to you was Mr. Neil Craig, of the 9% Growth Party.

However, since you asked me the question which should have been directed to Mr. Neil Craig, I will out of courtesy and respect to you, reply to your question.


By the deliberate choice of those two words: "concentration camp", the Guardian's Ed Vulliamy is clearly implying that Trnopolje was not merely a POW detention facility but was instead a WW2 Nazi style concentration/death camp.

And it is quite clear that the implication of Ed Vulliamy and friends at the Guardian is that anyone whom disagrees with them - regardless of the exculpatory evidence available - is somehow guilty of the equivalent of "Holocaust denial" which is obviously what Ed Vulliamy is implying with his deliberate choice of the phrase, "anti-Semitic".

Since you chose not to give me a "yes" or "no" answer to my question on whether or not you believed the Guardian/ITN lie that Trnopolje was a WW2 Nazi style "concentration camp" it is clear that you felt the need to defend and justify your answer, implying that you are not entirely 100% sure that it was indeed a "concentration camp".

That is quite obvious also from your other comments which clearly show you don't entirely agree with the Guardian's Ed Vulliamy that it was indeed a "concentration camp".

Does that now give the right to Mr. Vulliamy of the Guardian to publish an article implying that because you disagree with his claims, you are now guilty of being "anti-Semitic" (in other words a thinly veiled implication that you are guilty of the equivalent of "Holocaust denial"?)

NO, of course it does not give him the right to imply such a thing. If he did, and the article was published in the Guardian naming you as having said so on Iain Dale's blog, I am sure that you would want to sue him for libel and defamation of character.

I take your answer as being a qualified "yes" that you doin fact believe that it most certainly was a nasty prison but that it was not a WW2 Nazi style "concentration camp" as the Guardian/ITN claims that it was with the deliberate choice of those words.


First of all you state that I have a "subjective view" of the Guardian/ITN claims. I have nothing of the sort. Strictly speaking, in terms of logical reasoning,one can only prove a positive - it is logically impossible to prove a negative.

In other words, the onus - or burden of proof - is on the person (or group) making the positive claim that Trnopolje was a "concentration camp" or "detention camp".

In criminal law, the need to prove a positive concerning someone's guilt is commonly referred to as"innocent until proven guilty"(rather than "guilty until proven innocent") or in other words in order to prove a prima facie case one must adhere to habeus corpus (Latin for "you must have the body").


It is not up to me or anybody else in the world to logically prove the negative (since that is logically impossible) that Trnopolje was NOT a "concentration camp"/"death camp". It is up to the Guardian's Ed Vulliamy & ITN to prove the positive that indeed it was a "concentration camp" since those are the two words Mr. Vulliamy deliberately chose to use in his numerous articles over a 15 year period.

The Guardian's Ed Vulliamy implying that somebody is "anti-Semitic" (in other words implying that they are guilty of the equivalent of "Holocaust denial")if they demand positive evidence that Trnopolje was a "concentration camp" is an ad hominem character assassination labelling attack and nothing more - it is just not good enough and does NOT constitute positive PROOF of Guardian/ITN claims.

So logically, it is the Guardian/ITN people who are guilty of being "subjective" (which also explains why they, as a multi billlion pound corporation, felt the need to threaten LM, a tiny iconoclastic magazine, with being sued into bankruptcy if they did not immediately pulp all their magazines and issue a retraction and apology that there was no evidence that Trnopolje was a "concentration camp".)

Izetbegovic's fundamentalist Islamist SDA ruling party in Bosnia is where the "concentration camp" lie originated - Izetbegovic admitted as much on his death bed in 2003 that he lied about Trnopolje and Omarska being "death camps" in the hope of provoking NATO bombing against the Bosnian Serbs.

The article you quoted from Wikipedia contains some obvious absurdities and self-contradictory claims. It states that Trnopolje was a "detention camp" - in other words, a prison complex which implies that the "inmates" are imprisoned behind tall and strong wire fences and NOT free to come and go as they please. Then in the very same sentence, it states that: "Trnopolje was a relatively minimal-security staging area..." thus certainly implying that it was most definitely NOT a "prison".

In other words by using the phrase "relatively minimal-security staging area",the author is clearly implying that people could very easily escape at any time; thus according to this statement, Trnopolje was absolutely NOTHING like a WW2 Nazi style "concentration camp" as the Guardian's Ed Vulliamy claims (perhaps Mr. Vulliamy has never seen what a real "concentration camp" looks like: 30 foot high guard towers in each corner containing machine gun nests and surrounded by 10 foot high electrified fences and/or razor sharp barbed wire).

The implication that people could not only escape with relative ease but that in fact that they could come and go as they pleased is confirmed again in the very same sentence! It states that "detainees...were allowed to forage for food outside the detention area's perimeter"!.

First its a "concentration camp", then its a "detention camp", then its a "minimal-security staging area" where "detainees" are even allowed to go outside in search of food!

And this sentence is somehow supposed to explain away how everyone except Fikret Alic was emaciated looking (whilst smiling and laughing)whilst many of the other so-called "detainees" had pot bellies: "...detainees were fed only sporadically,but were allowed to forage for food outside the detention area's perimeter".

Clearly implying that Fikret Alic must have been fed so "sporadically" that he ended up so thin, that whilst being allowed to leave the "minimal-security staging area" of Trnopolje where he was "allowed to forage for food outside the detention area's perimeter", Mr. Alic was somehow so incompetent (or unlucky)that he was incapable of finding food and feeding himself, whilst all the other "detainees" were clearly able to do so, since, we are told: "this explains the widely varying nourishment condition of the inmates."

SO we have a "concentration camp" which isn't, but rather a "detention camp" which really isn't, but rather a "minimal-security staging area" which is so minimally secure that "detainees" are even allowed to go outside the "perimeter" - since it did not have the luxury of "concentration camp" style security benefits like 10 foot high electrified and/or razor wire fences - in order to "forage for food".


Incidentally, if we want to know why Wikipedia can engage in such preposterous absurdities as above, one only need look at its track record on the subject of the Balkans conflict in ex-Yugoslavia.

Wikipedia is now a totally discredited source of information on the Balkans conflicts specifically as it has been exposed on numerous occasions as having deliberately censored exculpatory evidence in support of Croatian Ustasha Nazis' and Bosnian Islamist Fascists' war crimes along with the suppression of their pro-Nazi, pro-genocidal views expressed prior to the outbreak of war (as well as during the war).


One notorious example is the almost WORD for WORD copying of the Croatian HDZ ruling party's propaganda information ministry hagiography of the late Croatian pro-Ustasha Nazi Hitler loving president, Franjo Tudjman - whom wrote in his 1989 Croatian version of Mein Kampf: "Wastelands of Historical Truth" the following:

"The establishment of Hitler's New Order could be justified by the need to be rid of the Jews, as well as to correct the French-British sin of the (post WW1) Versailles setup and "Genocidal violence is a natural phenomenon in harmony with the societal and mythologically Divine nature. Genocide is not only permitted it is also recommended ,whenever it is useful for the survival or the restoration of the earthly kingdom of the chosen nation, or for the preservation and spreading of its one and only correct faith".

The Guardian's censorship and numerous egregious lies over a 17 year period in taking sides with self-confessed genocidal balkan Nazis like Franjo Tudjman and Alija Izetbegovic suggest that it is an unreliable source for factual, truthful information.

Sir, if you had taken the time to read the articles Lies the London Guardian told me... or, The Return of Villainy and JUDGMENT DAY FOR THE WESTERN MEDIA: KOSOVO AND THE BIG LIE you would have been given sufficient proof that the Guardian has lied repeatedly and covered up the truth of Tudjman's and Izetbegovic's genocidal crimes and Nazi beliefs/writings over almost a 17 year period.

In kindergarten, we all learn a very basic rule, which I like to call "The Boy Who Cried Wolf Principle."

How does this rule work? Suppose that you know this person, whom we will call Ed Vulliamy of the Guardian, and suppose that Ed Vulliamy, in the past has lied to you repeatedly, dramatically, and shamelessly about topic A over many years.

The next time that Ed Vulliamy of the Guardian makes an assertion about topic A with the same slant as assertions on topic A that have repeatedly been huge lies, you have to make one of two choices:

1) Make the provisional assumption that Ed Vulliamy is lying again (until proven otherwise); or

2) Make the provisional assumption that Ed Vulliamy is, for the first time, telling the truth (until proven otherwise).

If you choose the second option you demonstrate that you are an imbecile who cannot reason. This is what Wikipedia, this guy Ed Vulliamy of the Guardian and Penny Marshall of ITN would have us do.